the killer, because the one who severed the limbs is the one who spared the Muslims from his evil. If he severed his hands or legs, and another person killed him (21), then the spoils belong to the one who severed the limbs, according to one of the two opinions, because he disabled him, so he is like the one who killed him. The second opinion is that the spoils belong in the general booty, because if his legs were intact, he would run and inflict much damage, and if his hands were intact, he would fight with them, so the one who severed the limbs did not spare the Muslims from all his evil, and the killer is not entitled to his spoils because he was incapacitated by wounds. If he severed his hand and his leg from opposite sides, the ruling is the same. If he severed one of his hands and one of his legs, then another person killed him, his spoils are part of the general booty. It is also possible that they belong to the killer, because he killed someone whose evil the Muslims had not yet been fully spared from (22). If a man wrestled with a man, and another person killed him, the spoils belong to the killer. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Al-Awza'i said: They belong to the wrestler. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever kills a person, he is entitled to his spoils." Also, because he spared the Muslims from his evil, he is like one who did not wrestle with the other. Likewise, if the disbeliever was advancing towards a man fighting him, and another person came from behind and struck him, killing him (23), his spoils belong to his killer, based on the evidence of the case (24) of Abu Qatadah's killed man. Third: He must kill him or incapacitate him with wounds that place him in the status of the killed. Ahmad said: The spoils only go to a killer (25). If a man captures someone, he is not entitled to his spoils, whether the Imam kills him or not. Makhul said: The spoils only go to one who captures a non-Arab soldier (ilj) or kills him. The judge (al-Qadi) said: If he captures a man and the Imam kills him in captivity (sabran), his spoils belong to the one who captured him, because capturing is more difficult than killing; so if he is entitled to the spoils by killing, this is an indication of entitlement by capturing. He said: If the Imam spares him, he has his ransom, or his person and his spoils, because he spared the Muslims from his evil. Our evidence is that the Muslims took captives on the day of Badr; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed 'Uqbah and al-Nadr ibn al-Harith and spared the rest of them (26), yet he did not give those who captured them their spoils, nor
(21) In A: "another". (22) In the original: "the Muslims were not spared". In M: "spared the Muslims". (23) Omitted from: A. (24) In M: "story". (25) In M: "to the killer". (26) See what has preceded on page 46.
القاتِلِ؛ لأنَّ القاطعَ هو الذى كفَى المسلمين شَرَّه. وإنْ قطعَ يدَيْه أو رجلَيْهِ، وقتلَهُ الآخرُ (٢١) فالسَّلَبُ للقاطِعِ، فى أحَدِ الوَجْهَيْن؛ لأنَّه عطَّلَه، فأشْبَه الذى قتلَه، والثانى، سَلَبُه فى الغَنِيمَةِ؛ لأنَّه إنْ كانت رِجْلاه سالِمَتَيْنِ، فإنَّه يعْدُو ويُكْثِرُ، وإن كانت يَداهُ سالِمَتَيْن، فإنَّه يُقاتِلُ بهما، فلم يَكْفِ القاطعُ شرَّه كلَّه، ولا يستحقُّ القاتلُ سَلَبَه؛ لأنَّه مُثْخَنٌ بالجراحِ. وإنْ قَطَعَ يدَه ورِجْلَه من خِلافٍ، فكذلك. وإنْ قطعَ إحْدَى يَدَيْه وإحْدَى رجْلَيْه، ثمّ قَتَلَه آخرُ، فسَلَبُه غَنِيمةٌ. ويَحْتَمِلُ أنَّه للقاتِلِ؛ لأنَّه قاتِلٌ لمَنْ لم [يكْتَفِ المسلمون] (٢٢) شرَّه. وإنْ عانَقَ رجلٌ رجُلًا، فقَتَلَه آخرُ، فالسَّلَبُ للقاتِلِ. وبهذا قال الشافِعِىُّ. وقال الأوْزَاعِىُّ: هو للمُعانِقِ. ولَنا، قولُ النَّبِىِّ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-: "مَنْ قَتَلَ قَتِيلًا، فَلَهُ سَلَبُهُ". ولأنَّه كفَى المسلمين شَرَّه، فَأشْبَهَ ما لو لم يُعانِقْه الآخَرُ. وكذلك لو كان الكافِرُ مُقْبِلًا على رجلٍ يقاتِلُه، فجاءَ آخرُ من ورائِه، فضرَبَه فقَتَلَه (٢٣)، فسَلَبُه لقاتِلِه، بدليلِ قَضِيَّةِ (٢٤) قتيلِ أبى قتادةَ. الثالث، أنْ يقتُلَه أو يُثْخِنَه بجِرَاحٍ تجعَلُه فى حُكْمِ المقتولِ. قال أحمد: لا يكونُ السَّلَبُ إلَّا لقاتلٍ (٢٥). وإنْ أسرَ رجلًا، لم يسْتَحِقَّ سَلَبَهُ، سواءٌ قتلَه الإِمامُ أو لم يَقْتُلْه. وقال مَكْحولٌ: لا يكونُ السَّلَبُ إلَّا لِمَنْ أسَرَ عِلْجًا أو قتلَه. وقال القاضى: إذا أسرَ رجُلا، فقَتَلَه الإِمامُ صَبْرًا، فسَلَبُه لمَنْ أسَرَه؛ لأنَّ الأسْرَ أصْعَبُ من القتلِ، فإذا اسْتَحقَّ سَلَبَهُ بالقَتْلِ، كان تَنْبِيهًا على اسْتِحْقاقِه بالأَسْرِ. قال: وإن اسْتَبْقَاه الإِمامُ، كان له فداؤُه، أو رقبتُه وسَلَبُه، لأنَّه كفَى المسلمين شَرَّه. ولَنا، أنَّ المُسْلِمين أسَرُوا أسْرَى يومَ بدْرٍ، فقَتلَ النَّبِىُّ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ- عُقْبَةَ والنَّضْرَ بن الحارِث، واسْتَبْقَى سائِرَهم (٢٦)، فلم يُعْطِ مَنْ أسَرَهم أسْلابَهم، ولا
(٢١) فى أ: "آخر".(٢٢) فى الأصل: "يكتف المسلمين". وفى م: "يكف المسلمين".(٢٣) سقط من: أ.(٢٤) فى م: "قصة".(٢٥) فى م: "للقاتل".(٢٦) انظر ما تقدم، فى صفحة ٤٦.
